Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

How high do experts ranked Don's 1938 season when he won the GS?
Not high since the level of competition wasn't strong. I just randomly look at one of his slam event(AO), and most of the players in the draw are from Aussie. Not much depth, wouldn't you say so?

Not to mention that was was during the recession period, war/tension develop in Europe. Eastern world was concern about japanese imperialism. Sport was the last thing they have in mind.

Click to expand...

The experts have always ranked it very high but in this case I agree with you that the level of competition wasn't as strong as even the previous year because von Cramm wasn't playing. In 1938 Budge did not have to play an Ellsworth Vines who may have been favored on some fast surfaces like grass, Nusslein who was perhaps the best clay court player in the world, his nemesis Fred Perry who would be extremely tough outdoors on grass and clay. Cochet and Tilden, while older were still very capable of defeating Budge. It would have been very tough for Budge to have a Grand Slam in 1938 against all competition.

On the other end I do think it's quite possible that Laver would have won another Grand Slam or so during his peak years of 1964 to 1967 if Open Tennis was around. Laver, unlike Budge faced top competition in Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez, Gimeno, Trabert, Segura, Sedgman, Cooper, Anderson etc.

To me it's very close. I wouldn't be surprised if Vines was the superior player in 1938.

I could see if Vines played tournaments he could have been the favorite over any player on a grass surface in 1938. On clay I would tend to think Nusslein would have the favorite in 1938 at the French Championships but of course Budge, Vines, Perry and von Cramm would have been big contenders.

The GS is when a player win 4 grand slam events in one year, and that's only applicable to the time when there were 3 grass and 1 clay(not today). The '67 ARE NOT slam events plus it's only 3 pro majors. Added to the fact the number of draw is between 8-14 players.

Laver only has 1 GS and that's the only one that people care about. The top 10 greatest season only has Laver 1969. I know kiki is always desperate in defending Laver, but I'm surprise to hear this from you.

Click to expand...

Well put.

Many, many of Laver's titles came against fields which entailed him playing only 3 or 4 players - sometimes with the first and second rounds being abject walkover material. If Federer gets shtick for having a weak era than Laver surely must, not only because of the much weaker talent pool depth-wise, but also because of the fewer matches he had to play when racking up the the pro-majors/slams or whatever they're called.

People who compare them to the slams as if they are remotely on-par are outing themselves as being ignorant of the reality that they aren't even as relevant historically as Masters 1000 series tournaments.

Many, many of Laver's titles came against fields which entailed him playing only 3 or 4 players - sometimes with the first and second rounds being abject walkover material. If Federer gets shtick for having a weak era than Laver surely must, not only because of the much weaker talent pool depth-wise, but also because of the fewer matches he had to play when racking up the the pro-majors/slams or whatever they're called.

People who compare them to the slams as if they are remotely on-par are outing themselves as being ignorant of the reality that they aren't even as relevant historically as Masters 1000 series tournaments.

Click to expand...

Laver often had a stronger field than Federer because in the pro events before open era he had to play against top players in every round.

The fields now generally are deeper but the top was better in older decades.

Laver often had a stronger field than Federer because in the pro events before open era he had to play against top players in every round.

The fields now generally are deeper but the top was better in older decades.

You ignore tennis history.

Click to expand...

True, Laver had to only play the top players of his era during certain tournaments but he didn't have to play as many rounds to win. This says nothing about the relative strength of the top players between eras. It would have been a joke to have more rounds anyway with such a sparse field.

Your second statement starts with a concession in order to make up for your obviously biased opinion.

Your third statement is only another brick that you add on top of the weak foundation for your argument.

Your basic opinion in every post is that while the field in general was poor, the top players were by some miracle playing at a level comparable to players who dominate (by your own admission) much deeper fields. This is only your flawed perception and has no basis in reality, facts, or mathematics in general.

Many, many of Laver's titles came against fields which entailed him playing only 3 or 4 players - sometimes with the first and second rounds being abject walkover material. If Federer gets shtick for having a weak era than Laver surely must, not only because of the much weaker talent pool depth-wise, but also because of the fewer matches he had to play when racking up the the pro-majors/slams or whatever they're called.

People who compare them to the slams as if they are remotely on-par are outing themselves as being ignorant of the reality that they aren't even as relevant historically as Masters 1000 series tournaments.

Click to expand...

Bobby Jr,

Honestly, how many tournaments does Federer play in where you basically can have him sleepwalk through the tournament and reach the semi. It only really gets tough in the semi if he faces even a weaker top ten play like Tsonga. It gets really tough if he faces Murray, Djokovic or Nadal. The last three can also sleepwalk (generally speaking) until at least the semi of most tournaments. A bigger field doesn't necessarily mean a better field.

Have you researched the fields Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad played in? Do you know the level of those players?

True, Laver had to only play the top players of his era during certain tournaments but he didn't have to play as many rounds to win. This says nothing about the relative strength of the top players between eras. It would have been a joke to have more rounds anyway with such a sparse field.

Your second statement starts with a concession in order to make up for your obviously biased opinion.

Your third statement is only another brick that you add on top of the weak foundation for your argument.

Click to expand...

NadalDramaQueen: We are on par: You ignore tennis history and I ignore your ignorance...

Honestly, how many tournaments does Federer play in where you basically can have him sleepwalk through the tournament and reach the semi. It only really gets tough in the semi if he faces even a weaker top ten play like Tsonga. It gets really tough if he faces Murray, Djokovic or Nadal. The last three can also sleepwalk (generally speaking) until at least the semi of most tournaments. A bigger field doesn't necessarily mean a better field.

Have you researched the fields Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad played in? Do you know the level of those players?

Click to expand...

pc1, do YOU know the level of those players? Do you have some type of instrument for measuring a player's level that I am unaware of? What is the standard unit of measurement for a player's level, and what type of error do you expect from your measuring device?

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.

pc1, do YOU know the level of those players? Do you have some type of instrument for measuring a player's level that I am unaware of? What is the standard unit of measurement for a player's level, and what type of error do you expect from your measuring device?

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.

Click to expand...

Yes I do know the level of these players. I will just leave at that.

Actually that last comment was uncalled for because that last thing I do is accept the words of so called experts on whether players are great or not. I've seen a number of these players plus I have records of many of them. Some so called greats were very disappointing in that their records were really not nearly as good as their reputation would lead you to think.

Here's a question for you. Is Michael Jordan a good basketball player and could he play today? What about Larry Bird or Wilt Chamberlain?

Is Bobby Fischer a good chessplayer or is Tal a superior player? Could they play today?

I doubt if you or anyone (including me) can answer that to anyone's total satisfaction but it is sufficient to say that the level of tennis in the 1950's and 1960's on the old Pro Tour was considered amazing high.

Honestly, how many tournaments does Federer play in where you basically can have him sleepwalk through the tournament and reach the semi. It only really gets tough in the semi if he faces even a weaker top ten play like Tsonga. It gets really tough if he faces Murray, Djokovic or Nadal. The last three can also sleepwalk (generally speaking) until at least the semi of most tournaments. A bigger field doesn't necessarily mean a better field.

Have you researched the fields Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad played in? Do you know the level of those players?

Click to expand...

pc1, Bobby Jr and NadalDramaQueen ignore the fact that a top player sharpens his game more when playing other top players day after day than a top player nowadays who often has weak opponents in earlier rounds.

I only understand his frustration, because while it was expressed incorrectly, the general idea was spot on.

By the way, please show me where on my GOAT list that I favor modern players over the players of previous eras.

There is a difference between where your own personal opinion lies and where you choose to stand in order to counter ridiculous arguments. I'm sure you will never understand.

Click to expand...

I confess I have forgotten your GOAT list. Maybe you can repeat it. I only know that you hate me since the first day of my posting for the fact that I rank the older players higher than the current ones.

Limpinhitter hates me because I rank Rosewall on par with Laver while he, as one of only a few posters in this forum ranks him not among the thirteen best...

I confess I have forgotten your GOAT list. Maybe you can repeat it. I only know that you hate me since the first day of my posting for the fact that I rank the older players higher than the current ones.

Limpinhitter hates me because I rank Rosewall on par with Laver while he, as one of only a few posters in this forum ranks him not among the thirteen best...

Click to expand...

Incorrect on both counts. First, I don't hate you as I do not even know you. I consider some of your posts to be terrible, while in others you provide valuable information. Some of your posts provide information I have access to myself, so I feel rather neutral about them. It doesn't matter how you rank your players, I only disagree with your lack of reasoning.

I feel confident that Limpinhitter didn't hate you for giving Rosewall a high ranking, but only for some of your more irrational posts and general attitude towards everyone.

I'll give you a copy of my GOAT list when I come up with a rating system that is quite clear about any assumptions and has error that can be quantified.

Incorrect on both counts. First, I don't hate you as I do not even know you. I consider some of your posts to be terrible, while in others you provide valuable information. Some of your posts provide information I have access to myself, so I feel rather neutral about them. It doesn't matter how you rank your players, I only disagree with your lack of reasoning.

I feel confident that Limpinhitter didn't hate you for giving Rosewall a high ranking, but only for some of your more irrational posts and general attitude towards everyone.

I'll give you a copy of my GOAT list when I come up with a rating system that is quite clear about any assumptions and has error that can be quantified.

Click to expand...

You err: Limpinhitter did write that it's a defamation to rank Rosewall tied with Laver. And he distorted my arguments and words...

You hated me from beginning when writing: "Go to the other forum!"

Please give me an example for my terrible posts. Thanks.

Thanks for writing about my "general attitude towards everone". I see you have not exactly read my more than 970 posts. Then you would have been aware that I use to be respectful to every poster as long as he or she is respectful towards me....

Have you researched the fields Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Trabert, Hoad played in? Do you know the level of those players?

Click to expand...

I've seen lists previously of the rankings of players Laver faced in his pro slams and they rarely look any more competitive than anything Federer has had to deal with. Even if he started with a draw of 8 or 16 players, the commensurate rankings of those players reflect a smaller draw. The simple fact he generally had to play fewer matches made the task easier on average.

On specific playing styles of each player and their relative strengths/weaknesses, no, I haven't researched the fields in-depth. I have however seen many videos from the era and there is no way the guys of Laver's era are anything like as complete a player as the current top guys. They were the top of their era no doubt but it's just a myth that those guys were as capable as modern players. A hazy, rose-tinted myth perpetuated by the same people who think music isn't as good as it used to be, movies aren't as good as they used to be, going out isn't as good as it used to be etc. According to half the 40+ year old world nothing is as good as it used to be. Reality: bollocks.

It's just hypocrisy or plain ignorance when people imply or state outright that Laver didn't also have the same luxury.

I've seen lists previously of the rankings of players Laver faced in his pro slams and they rarely look any more competitive than anything Federer has had to deal with. Even if he started with a draw of 8 or 16 players, the commensurate rankings of those players reflect a smaller draw. The simple fact he generally had to play fewer matches made the task easier on average.

On specific playing styles of each player and their relative strengths/weaknesses, no, I haven't researched the fields in-depth. I have however seen many videos from the era and there is no way the guys of Laver's era are anything like as complete a player as the current top guys. They were the top of their era no doubt but it's just a myth that those guys were as capable as modern players. A hazy, rose-tinted myth perpetuated by the same people who think music isn't as good as it used to be, movies aren't as good as they used to be, going out isn't as good as it used to be etc. According to half the 40+ year old world nothing is as good as it used to be. Reality: bollocks.

Click to expand...

Please tell me where we now have a Bach, a Mozart, a Beethoven and a Schubert? Alas, we don't have them now. Similary the movies. We now only have action and sex and crime...

You err: Limpinhitter did write that it's a defamation to rank Rosewall tied with Laver. And he distorted my arguments and words...

You hated me from beginning when writing: "Go to the other forum!"

Please give me an example for me terrible posts. Thanks.

Thanks for writing about my "general attitude towards everone". I see you have not excatly read my more than 970 posts. Then you would have been aware that I use to be respectful to every poster as long as he or she is respectful towards me....

Click to expand...

You were distorting his arguments to the same degree, if not more.

Give me a break, BobbyOne. You are like a kid telling a story about the size of his fish. I only said to stop trolling members who were trying to have a discussion when you were only trying to tell everyone how any player under fifty is garbage. I really hope that you will be able to get on with your life one day.

Actually that last comment was uncalled for because that last thing I do is accept the words of so called experts on whether players are great or not. I've seen a number of these players plus I have records of many of them. Some so called greats were very disappointing in that their records were really not nearly as good as their reputation would lead you to think.

Here's a question for you. Is Michael Jordan a good basketball player and could he play today? What about Larry Bird or Wilt Chamberlain?

Is Bobby Fischer a good chessplayer or is Tal a superior player? Could they play today?

I doubt if you or anyone (including me) can answer that to anyone's total satisfaction but it is sufficient to say that the level of tennis in the 1950's and 1960's on the old Pro Tour was considered amazing high.

Click to expand...

pc1, that is a quote from Richard Feynman, not an insult to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is something that should be understood by everyone.

I am not interested in diminishing former champions for any reason. I am only interested in people learning to accept that their perception is very limited. In many cases here, an already biased viewpoint is pushed further by the unwillingness to accept that a modern player could possibly be better than someone they grew up watching. It works both ways, of course.

Please tell me where we now have a Bach, a Mozart, a Beethoven and a Schubert? Alas, we don't have them now. Similary the movies. We now only have action and sex and crime...

Click to expand...

We wont know until 100 years from now. That's the reality of popular art, music and fashion - their significance is rarely recognised as such until much later. > as with Mozart, Beethoven etc were when considered within the cultural and technical constraints of their era.

It's either B.S. or muppetry to suggest we have only sex and crime movies also. I'll give you credit and guess you were just trying to make a point.

pc1, Bobby Jr and NadalDramaQueen ignore the fact that a top player sharpens his game more when playing other top players day after day than a top player nowadays who often has weak opponents in earlier rounds.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore that. Laver etc were sharpening their games in the weeks before the majors playing each other all over the place. Arguably that is far more apt for fine-tuning a game than playing early round bunnies.

Go look at the stats on how often the top guys played each other. They played each other 20 plus times a year in their primes. That's how loaded their tournaments and small the draws were. There is no credible argument which shows this would make someone a better player than playing a more diverse group of capable peers as happens nowdays.

pc1, that is a quote from Richard Feynman, not an insult to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is something that should be understood by everyone.

I am not interested in diminishing former champions for any reason. I am only interested in people learning to accept that their perception is very limited. In many cases here, an already biased viewpoint is pushed further by the unwillingness to accept that a modern player could possibly be better than someone they grew up watching. It works both ways, of course.

Click to expand...

People naturally tend to be bias of course and I'm sure I am in many ways as we all are, however in researching many of the players I've mentioned I have looked up many of their lifetime statistics and studied their playing styles, strengths and weaknesses. So I would hope by doing this I would be more objective. And yes a number of them I have seen live. Not Bill Tilden however as one person hinted one time. lol.

So I try to reduce any preconceived notions I have had by studying them have compared to the players of their own eras. So like I'm written, some were painfully less than what I expected and some were surprisingly better than expected. I won't name any players however.

It's just hypocrisy or plain ignorance when people imply or state outright that Laver didn't also have the same luxury.

I've seen lists previously of the rankings of players Laver faced in his pro slams and they rarely look any more competitive than anything Federer has had to deal with. Even if he started with a draw of 8 or 16 players, the commensurate rankings of those players reflect a smaller draw. The simple fact he generally had to play fewer matches made the task easier on average.

On specific playing styles of each player and their relative strengths/weaknesses, no, I haven't researched the fields in-depth. I have however seen many videos from the era and there is no way the guys of Laver's era are anything like as complete a player as the current top guys. They were the top of their era no doubt but it's just a myth that those guys were as capable as modern players. A hazy, rose-tinted myth perpetuated by the same people who think music isn't as good as it used to be, movies aren't as good as they used to be, going out isn't as good as it used to be etc. According to half the 40+ year old world nothing is as good as it used to be. Reality: bollocks.

Click to expand...

Music? where´s music gone since the early 90´s? do you call that music?

Give me a break, BobbyOne. You are like a kid telling a story about the size of his fish. I only said to stop trolling members who were trying to have a discussion when you were only trying to tell everyone how any player under fifty is garbage. I really hope that you will be able to get on with your life one day.

Click to expand...

Distorting arguments is not my style. It's an asset of Limpinhitter and your's.

I don't have any difficulties to have fruitful discussions with most posters here, even with TMF, kiki and Dan Lobb (the last at least recently).

When did I say that any player under fifty is garbage???? I have Sampras at sixth and Federer at seventh place. (maybe both even).

We wont know until 100 years from now. That's the reality of popular art, music and fashion - their significance is rarely recognised as such until much later. > as with Mozart, Beethoven etc were when considered within the cultural and technical constraints of their era.

It's either B.S. or muppetry to suggest we have only sex and crime movies also. I'll give you credit and guess you were just trying to make a point.

I didn't ignore that. Laver etc were sharpening their games in the weeks before the majors playing each other all over the place. Arguably that is far more apt for fine-tuning a game than playing early round bunnies.

Go look at the stats on how often the top guys played each other. They played each other 20 plus times a year in their primes. That's how loaded their tournaments and small the draws were. There is no credible argument which shows this would make someone a better player than playing a more diverse group of capable peers as happens nowdays.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Bobby Jr, that you contradict me without belittling me as Limpinhitter and NadalDramaQueen use to do. This is the way to have a good discussion!

We wont know until 100 years from now. That's the reality of popular art, music and fashion - their significance is rarely recognised as such until much later. > as with Mozart, Beethoven etc were when considered within the cultural and technical constraints of their era.

It's either B.S. or muppetry to suggest we have only sex and crime movies also. I'll give you credit and guess you were just trying to make a point.

Click to expand...

During his lifetime, Beethoven was recognized by the average citizen as one of the three most important persons in Europe (Napoleon and Goethe were the other two).

It's just hypocrisy or plain ignorance when people imply or state outright that Laver didn't also have the same luxury.

I've seen lists previously of the rankings of players Laver faced in his pro slams and they rarely look any more competitive than anything Federer has had to deal with. Even if he started with a draw of 8 or 16 players, the commensurate rankings of those players reflect a smaller draw. The simple fact he generally had to play fewer matches made the task easier on average.

On specific playing styles of each player and their relative strengths/weaknesses, no, I haven't researched the fields in-depth. I have however seen many videos from the era and there is no way the guys of Laver's era are anything like as complete a player as the current top guys. They were the top of their era no doubt but it's just a myth that those guys were as capable as modern players. A hazy, rose-tinted myth perpetuated by the same people who think music isn't as good as it used to be, movies aren't as good as they used to be, going out isn't as good as it used to be etc. According to half the 40+ year old world nothing is as good as it used to be. Reality: bollocks.

Click to expand...

Let's look at reality and facts.

I think it's fair to use the Open Era as the line that established a firm level of competition for all. The first year of the Open Era was 1968, a year which Laver would turn 30.

Laver's last fully active year was 1975. Laver won 76 tournaments in the first 8 years in the Open Era. Notice that he won 45 tournaments the first three years of the Open Era. I see no reason that he wouldn't have kept that pace or better of winning tournaments during his peak years.

So if we just go by the Open Era Laver's record looks very impressive for tournaments won, especially when you consider he was perhaps past his prime when the Open Era started.

People naturally tend to be bias of course and I'm sure I am in many ways as we all are, however in researching many of the players I've mentioned I have looked up many of their lifetime statistics and studied their playing styles, strengths and weaknesses. So I would hope by doing this I would be more objective. And yes a number of them I have seen live. Not Bill Tilden however as one person hinted one time. lol.

So I try to reduce any preconceived notions I have had by studying them have compared to the players of their own eras. So like I'm written, some were painfully less than what I expected and some were surprisingly better than expected. I won't name any players however.

Click to expand...

Watching tennis live is a wonderful experience but I do not believe it is a big help in determining the mystical concept of level of play. All I'm suggesting is that comparing levels of play across eras is exceptionally difficult and is likely impossible, yet that doesn't stop certain posters from claiming that they know something like this for a fact, and using it to make other points.

During his lifetime, Beethoven was recognized by the average citizen as one of the three most important persons in Europe (Napoleon and Goethe were the other two).

Arvo Part is quite good, and he is still alive.

"muppetry"?

Click to expand...

I believe that there is still music being made that is at least on par with past classical works. I wouldn't dare name any of them with all the posters lurking around here ready to insult you for doing so.

The whole discussion reminds me of a similar one about science. With each new breakthough (at least in physics) it gets harder and harder to push the limits so much in one step. A big thing now is the discovery of a particle, where even a hundred years ago papers were published that changed our entire worldview to something we had never even considered.

Laver's last fully active year was 1975. Laver won 76 tournaments in the first 8 years in the Open Era. Notice that he won 45 tournaments the first three years of the Open Era. I see no reason that he wouldn't have kept that pace or better of winning tournaments during his peak years.

So if we just go by the Open Era Laver's record looks very impressive for tournaments won, especially when you consider he was perhaps past his prime when the Open Era started.

Click to expand...

well said

Laver´s prime is 62 to 69 but he was a major factor in the first half of the 70´s

when Connors started his so famous challenges in Las Vegas, the first words he said to his manager was simply " get me Laver " it says it all in 1975

Please tell me where we now have a Bach, a Mozart, a Beethoven and a Schubert? Alas, we don't have them now. Similary the movies. We now only have action and sex and crime...

Click to expand...

LOL. People will go to any length to defend Laver even with such irrelevant argument. That's like asking where are the great ninja warriors now when there were many in the 15th century. Life was different today from few centuries ago...people have different needs, interest, desire. Next thing you will compare stone tool maker today to the people during the stone age.

During his lifetime, Beethoven was recognized by the average citizen as one of the three most important persons in Europe (Napoleon and Goethe were the other two).

Arvo Part is quite good, and he is still alive.

"muppetry"?

Click to expand...

Again, this is pointless. Beethoven was in the 16th century. Had he live in the modern time, he wouldn't be where he is. Just like Michael Jackson, he wouldn't be the king of pop if he was born 400 years ago.

Jesse Owen is one of the most well known track and field athlete. Yet, today there's many athletes that are faster than him.

I believe he's trying to write that it is wrong to admire Federer as the default choice for GOAT. And I do agree with him there. I don't think Federer is a slamdunk for GOAT but only one of the players who can be considered as a possibility.

Give BobbyOne this, he admires Rosewall but considers Laver every bit as good as Rosewall.

My opinion is that there are several players who are in consideration for GOAT status and I often change my mind depending on the information at hand.

It's just hypocrisy or plain ignorance when people imply or state outright that Laver didn't also have the same luxury.

Click to expand...

In the Open Era, yes but usually not in the Old Pro Tour.

The point I was trying to make is that a larger tournament doesn't necessarily make it a tougher one if your first four rounds are easy wins. That's true of Laver, Tilden, Federer, Rosewall, Gonzalez and any great. Many try to say that Laver had it easier because some of his tournaments were not as large as some today. As you can see by an earlier post I wrote on this thread Laver did quite well in larger OPEN tournaments from 1968 onward. So I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have won around the same number of tournaments as he did in actual life. He probably wouldn't have been playing Rosewall, Gonzalez and Hoad every week in a full Open Era from the beginning of his career and that would make it easier for him in that way.

A tough eight man tournament may be much tougher than an easy 32 man tournament or 64 man tournament. Sometime it's much tougher than a 128 man tournament.

pc1, that is a quote from Richard Feynman, not an insult to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It is something that should be understood by everyone.

I am not interested in diminishing former champions for any reason. I am only interested in people learning to accept that their perception is very limited. In many cases here, an already biased viewpoint is pushed further by the unwillingness to accept that a modern player could possibly be better than someone they grew up watching. It works both ways, of course.

Click to expand...

Sorry I usually don't remember quotes of Quantum Physicists which is ironic since my neighbor is one.

Sorry I usually don't remember quotes of Quantum Physicists which is ironic since my neighbor is one.

Click to expand...

The concept should be understood by everyone, my friend, not the quote itself.

That's funny about your neighbor, as I don't know anyone who has the title of quantum physicist, as any physicist with any specialization must be well versed in quantum mechanics. I would really like to meet someone who would bestow himself with that title, as I find it quite odd.

Is he a quantum physicist compared to some other classical or relativistic physicists? Is he a relativistic quantum physicist, or not relativistic? :lol: It seems to be a term used to sound impressive by crackpots or for physicists who get tired of telling people what they do.

At the end, only the top 15-20 players win the big events thus the rest of the field, be it wide or not doesn´t much matter.

If you take that into account, the fields Laver had to face consisted of some of the best ever players, in a reasonably much larger number than those of Roger Federer.This also happens in the case of Pete Sampras ( not in Borg´s case, IMO, a guy that linked Rosewall with Lendl).

Of course, having said that, nobody can chose his/her fields and, of course, nobody can blame him/herself for the year they are born.It´s not Federer´s fault to play in a weak era and not Rod´s merit to play in a competitive era at the top 15-20.What is a merit or not is what they did and we must always weighten and relativize success - or lack of it-.

I believe he's trying to write that it is wrong to admire Federer as the default choice for GOAT. And I do agree with him there. I don't think Federer is a slamdunk for GOAT but only one of the players who can be considered as a possibility.

Give BobbyOne this, he admires Rosewall but considers Laver every bit as good as Rosewall.

My opinion is that there are several players who are in consideration for GOAT status and I often change my mind depending on the information at hand.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne only admire players during Laver's era, but none for the modern players.

Who said a goat has to be a slam dunk? If millions of fans all picked the same player as the greatest, then I would say that's a slam dunk. But for all time great(i.e. Jordan, Phelps, Gretzky), there are a few out there have different point of view, just like Federer doesn't have EVERY fans pick him. When experts determined the list of all time great, the #1 player on the list doesn't necessary means he got all first place votes imo.

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

Now, here´s a challenge to all seasoned posters...how do we weigthen titles era v era? let´s say a major in the 70´s is worthy 2 majors of the current era.So, in relative terms, we can stablish that a 2000 Kodes would have 5-6 majors and a 70´s Djokovic around 3...

Click to expand...

No, because Laver have already made it clear. He said today's 1 GS is worth 2 GS in his heyday.